uncledude426@gmail.com

Wins da standalone comin' out? FUHGEDDABOUDIT!!!

I also heard this! Just now...

"I've lost interest..." "But Rocket said..." "Fuck Rocket!" "I don't want your stupid game any more!"

? Beer is always plentiful when I play DayZ...though supplies seem to dwindle as my session extends into the wee hours. Stupid server...

I think I'll just preface my press statement with "DayZ insider 'Fraggle' proclaims..." That makes it official. ;)

Try perusing the "Where the fuck is the standalone?/Fuck Rocket!" thread(s) on this very forum for further degradation.

Dying. Also: crapping my pants. These two bad habits may be related, it seems.

What I am taking away from this statement is that Rocket is in cahoots with Ubisoft, and DayZ will now launch with UPlay. I'll alert the press!

The added processing power of SLI 560s will allow you to crank up your graphic settings. The problem is that you still only have a 1GB frame buffer (In SLI, the same data is mirrored on each graphics card), and most modern games will eat that up at even modest settings. Skyrim, for example, will easily use 2-3 GB with texture packs installed; ArmA uses tons of vram as well. Going forward, console ports will use more and more vram as the memory limitations are much higher on the new machines. I'd go for a current gen card with 2-3 GB of vram, as high-end as you can afford - Titan excluded, which is just terrible value.

Play Lingor and make it your goal to acquire a car, hit that sweet jump west of Calamar and go out in a blaze of glory!

Pretty sure it was a mention in PC Gamer magazine that piqued my interest. A Youtube search yielded a Sidestrafe video and my fate was sealed.

Whew, just in time. *slowly removes spork from wrist*

Gotta believe it's your cpu. My brother runs the same gpu with a 3570k at high framerates/settings (30+ in cities and 60+ everywhere else). One thing you could do is check that your cpu (cpu-z) and gpu (MSI Afterburner or EVGA Precision) are clocking up fully. Edit - Also check task manager during gameplay. It's likely you'll find one core at or near max utilization. That'll be your bottleneck.

3.9GHz is the turbo boost clock, which the cpu does automatically when conditions warrant, and it's only on one core. You'll want to do a manual or offset overclock yourself and you can set it to all cores in the UEFI. Just be sure you have a good aftermarket cooler: Ivy Bridge and Haswell cpus heat up quite a bit.

I run a similar system: i7 2600K @ 4.8GHz and 2 GTX 680s. Your framerate will only be limited by the game engine itself (in particular, a maxed-out single core) and the server you join. You'll have tons of GPU headroom, so crank up the settings. Be aware that everyone still has dips in the major cities (35-40 fps in my case). Enjoy your new setup!

In-game or real life?

This is just silly. Every pc I've ever built has been OC'd 20-40% and has run flawlessly (currently 2600K@4.8 for two and a half years). If you do your homework, have excellent cooling, and stay within reasonable voltage/temperature parameters, you'll get a "free", reliable performance boost. Intel and AMD sell unlocked cpus with big oc headroom specifically for this purpose. As for ArmA 2, when you take into account that the bottleneck for most people is a single maxed-out core, it stands to reason that increasing the clock speed of that core will increase your performance/framerate. Edit - @OP The hardware your server is running - as well as number of players/zombies and time since last restart - will dictate your performance to a large degree. Your cpu usage may be at 20% overall, but if you take a look at task manager, you'll likely find one core at or near max usage. You have plenty of GPU headroom, so cranking up the settings a bit will likely result in similar framerates but improved visuals.

Really? Two of us told you a $40 GT 610 is crap with a mere 5-10% of the performance of gaming cards. I'd wager you'd get single-digit framerates at any setting. I can only surmise you're looking for someone to lie and say it's a great setup?

With those specs, I'd stick to minesweeper. Kidding, of course. Are you trolling? I have a similar setup, with 2 680s, and barely squeak by... Try super-ultra-low settings and set your resolution to 800 x 600 and aim for 15 fps.

I'd give it a go at native resolution and high-ish settings. Your cpu (or one core in particular), as good as it is, will be the bottleneck. Monitor your hardware (EVGA Precision/ MSI Afterburner for GPU and Task Manager for CPU) and determine where the limitation is. If you have gpu headroom, crank up the settings. Your limitations will be server-side only. Crank it up - and if you have a good cpu cooler, shoot for 4.6 - 4.8 on the overclock. Sorry to say, but while your cpu is decent, a GT 610 is meant to be an HTPC card, capable of fine HD movie output, but something on the order of 5-10% of the performance of a typical gaming card, such as a 7970, GTX670/680/780. I wouldn't recommend it.

Because we originally started at 12,039 and everybody bitched at Rocket. Personally, I think 11,483 is the obvious, and most medically accurate, choice.

Many of you are forgetting to post one of the most important factors regarding performance: monitor resolution. It takes a hell of a lot more processing power to render 1080p or higher than it does a much lower resolution. It would also be helpful to state your minimum standards for fps. "Will it run the game on XXX settings?" isn't all that helpful. Most modern PCs will run the game, but if it's a slideshow what's the point? Some are satisfied with a choppy 20-25 fps whilst I'm always shooting for a smooth 60. Please be specific and you'll likely get more responses. Cheers ;)

Anybody play Gunpoint? I want those frog pants.

It's simply the way I choose to play the game. I find that consuming about a dozen beers enhances my already stellar communication skills.

It's been a long time, but I believe you need to launch both ArmA 2 and Operation Arrowhead before installing the mod.